[PCWorld]

Post your comments for 'Audacious' Hactivists Make Social Statement, Scholar Says here

[Hemo2]

Leave it to an educator (i.e. - liberal elitist) to liken illegal activity to a public service. Good grief. Just how clueless & pathetic has our educational system become?

He uses the old 'freedom of expression' to justify their crimes as if it is protected as free speech by the Constitution. Never mind their so called 'free expression' infringes on others right to expression as they illegally hack into servers and alter information on websites.

[nonseq]

Typical melo cheering for vandals lurking in the dark everywhere

[ZipFolder]

Wow, freedom of speech is abused, again and again. I totally agree with you,Hemo2.

[TheOldTopkick]

The writer should be voted the optimist of the year award or possibly an agent for someone who does not mean well for this country. I still say ignore them if possible.

[deepsand]

Benkler appears to simply be trotting out the threadbare proposition that the ends justify the means.

[ezeitouni]

The author is not trying to justify anonymous' criminal activity. The author is saying that if we rush into a new set of cyber security laws in fear of anonymous, we will end up with another dystopian law like the Patriot Act.

[MounirMeziani]

i dont think the freedome of speech implies in these situations
, neither is it an exuse for what they have done, most ppl think there good ppl but overall there still hackers, and hackers naturally steal info like credit card info

[deepsand]

Hemo2, on 07 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Leave it to an educator (i.e. - liberal elitist) to liken illegal activity to a public service.

Guess that makes our country's revolutionary founders "liberal elitists."

One would here be wise to set political bent aside when making judgment. The position taken by said professor is one that calls no political camp its home, but rather is a pragmatic one, albeit it one that some obviously will find to be in the extreme.

[deepsand]

ezeitouni, on 07 April 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

The author is not trying to justify anonymous' criminal activity. The author is saying that if we rush into a new set of cyber security laws in fear of anonymous, we will end up with another dystopian law like the Patriot Act.

Said writer makes neither mention of nor allusion to the possibility of new Law, but rather suggests that Anon not be punished to the full extent of current Law, holding that mitigating circumstances argue for such leniency.

That, of course, is precisely the argument advanced by Anon itself as justification for its criminal activities.